The Conservative Revolution: the “Left” Dilemma

To understand where the global “left”-“right” divides stands now, we must take a quick look at some key developments and join them together within the particular context sought; because the roots of this divide go back to the times during which the Western mind was in the process of choosing between such issues as succumbing to the Church versus liberation, monarchies versus progressive and democratic governments and science versus fiction.

A quick look at all the opportunities that people have had for awakening in the past reveals, without much effort at all, that they were virtually all quickly and swiftly hijacked by individuals and organizations seeking gain and mileage. One can perhaps understand why some people are driven by ego, others are lured by financial rewards, fame, power etc, and whilst it is not easy to “forgive” them, they are easier to forgive than those who meddle with people’s minds and replace their drive for enlightenment and knowledge by unsurmountable walls of ignorance, darkness, ill-defined destinations and even no destinations at all to aspire to reach.

Western Churches had for centuries controlled the minds of their flocks. As a matter of fact, the term “flock” is quite befitting, because they did regard them as mindless sheep. For many generations, they have told them what to believe in, how to think, what subjects to discuss and what to stay away from. They have even told them what to eat, when to eat, who and when to marry, and should one dare break those rules and commandments, he/she can face the pain of death.

Whilst this monstrosity is considered to be by-and-large a thing of the past in the Western/Christian World, it is still well and alive within some of the other communities and religions, and the new wave of terror under the guise of Islamic terrorism is only a manifestation of this phenomenon that it still thriving.

The age of awakening in Western Europe did not come from the Church that did not reform despite many claims to the contrary made by the mainstream Churches as well as some breakaway factions alike. The awakening was the result of the fact that the Western mind liberated itself from the yokes of the Church and instead of listening to the rhetoric of their priests telling them that they were born sinners and that they will burn forever in hell unless they obey their orders and directives, for a change, they were able to read the works of Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, and listen to the music of Bach and Beethoven and see the creativity of Da Vinci. The scientific revolution that ensued was a result of this liberation, and the Western mind had the opportunity to lead humanity and to prosper at all levels, and it did.

To the dismay of some Americans who believe that the American Revolution was the first such popular action against oppressive regimes, the mother of all revolutions was undoubtedly the French Revolution. This is because the French Revolution was the outcome of enlightenment and social awakening, spearheaded by Voltaire, Mollier, Rousseaux and not just a haphazard revolt related to tea trade tax laws. The French Revolution was in fact the inspiration that gave rise to Hegel and Marx, and in its demand for bread to feed the poor, an economic component was therefore added. Sadly, that awakening was not to last because when the Communist Manifesto was published, the European awakening was inadvertently ready to be hijacked and take a detour from its lofty philosophical spiritual sense and be replaced by financial pragmatism.

Backed by setting up economics as a “science”, in reality, Marx’s “historical materialism” was an indirect outcome of John Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, and became an uninvited de facto love-child, turned hijacker, of the awakening of the Western mind and the age of European enlightenment. But the “financial/economic revolution” was bound to fail because its approach and reach were not holistic, but at best practical. Somehow, Marx and Hegel have perhaps forgotten that man does not live by bread alone and that mankind seeks spirituality, even when it does not conform with rationality.

Speaking of rationality, we are now hitting a very sensitive chord. Institutionalized religions did not offer the Western mind any rationality at all, but that was only the beginning. However, even though the age of awakening based its doctrine on rationality and bolstered it with advances in science and medicine, the Western mind was only ready for a portion of it, and later on succumbed to financial pragmatism as lifestyle took precedence over the pursuit of knowledge. On the other hand, in Eastern Europe, the Communist takeover took the Eastern European mind into a seemingly opposing political ideology; Communism as opposed to Western Capitalism, but in spiritual, ideological and philosophical terms, they were not proverbial opposite sides of the same coin, but rather different corners of the same side of the same coin. However, the failure of Communism was evident with the demise of the USSR, but the demise of Capitalism continues to be met with total denial. That collapse is already here and upon us, but its acknowledgment is still in the making.

In between the demise of the influence of the Western Churches on Western masses and the rise of and fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, the political notion of “right” and “left” emerged initially in the UK to later on move to the entire world.

The political “left” did not only offer its faithful followers the promise of change, but also the promise of liberation; both in body and in mind.

The right to have a job, fair wages, financial retirement security, medical care, free education, sick pay, maternity pay and similar rights were high on the agenda of the Eastern Communist bloc, and that was perceived as the global socialist “left”. On the other hand, in the Western version of the “left”, and in addition to the above, freedom of political expression and freedom of worship and other freedoms were added to the preamble. Some, indeed many Westerners, would argue that even though the “regimes” of Eastern Europe gave themselves the adjective of being “democratic”, they were very far from it, and use the examples of lifetime leaders like former Yugoslavia’s Tito and Romania’s Ceausescu as examples. In retrospect however, the Eastern European counter-argument is hardly ever heard in the West; and this is not the time and place to present it.

Either way, whether or not the “left”, in its ideal absoluteness, did reach power in either Eastern or Western Europe or not, it has not yet given any overwhelming evidence that it has furnished the promised Holy Grail of freedom and equality and all the minor promises that come with them.

The socialist “left” ideas perhaps reached their zenith when Castro and Guevara came to prominence. Guevara is still celebrated as a hero in the most unlikely places. T-Shirts bearing his portrait are even sold in NYC.

During the USSR era, any ideology that was remotely related to socialism was tagged by Western “regimes” as being Communist. Even speaking about and advocating social justice was a dangerous act in the United States, and immediately labelled one as a member of the infamous, illusive, perhaps fictitious “Un-American Activities Committee”. And whilst many socialist movements, both within the USA or outside it, had nothing to do with Communism per se, they were all made to be perceived as being Communist. That was the establishment’s method to portray them and present them.

It was within this atmosphere that the “left” thrived in Western Europe, but even the then very popular French Communist Party has distanced itself from the Communist version of the Kremlin. Nonetheless, socialist parties in Europe have made big gains and even reached the Élysée when Francois Mitterrand was elected as French President in 1981.

But even though the Western “left” tried to distant itself from the USSR, in the eyes of many, the two remained highly associated with each other. And when British unionist Arthur Scargill visited the USSR to spite Maggie Thatcher he made no apologies at all for visiting it, and thus endorsing it, and for this, among other things, he was seen as a so-called militant unionist. That aside, in the UK and Australia, the Labour/Labor parties are highly associated with trade unions and seek social justice, and this is why they have been identified as being on the “left”. And whilst the American Democratic Party could not be given a loud and clear “left” tag per se, the Labour/Labor parties across the Atlantic and the Pacific, respectively, found in it the natural political ally.

In theory, the demise of the USSR should have put the Western “left” at ease. After all, it meant that any argument based on the alleged association of the Western ”left” with the USSR has lost its foundation. But that demise should have also meant that the “left” had fallen under a new challenge; the challenge of reinventing itself as a stand-alone force for change for the better; in a manner that promoted justice and equality, not only domestically, but also globally.

In reality however, that process of rebirth was nothing short of being disastrous.

Without di-polarity, and for the first time since the partition of the Roman Empire, humanity found itself under a so-called New World Order in which the United States of America was the unrivalled leader of the world. Whilst no bans as such were imposed on “left” ideas and “left” parties in the West, the process of rebirth needed new ideas and new preambles. This required a new generation of leaders, but those leaders were not to be found.

To say that the Western “left” merged into the establishment would be an understatement. If anything, it underpinned the establishment’s position by setting itself up as one of its corner stones. In more ways than one, the “left” in the West did not only merge into the so-called “Imperial Empire” it was meant stand up against, but also became its face and organ. It was no longer a force for the kind of change that was initially promised and expected, and thus has inadvertently lost its stature and very definition of being “left”.

In the sequel article, we shall have a brief look at surrogate principles that the Western “left” conjured up seeking survival, and possibly in another sequel, project how those newly-adopted ideas are highly likely to lead to its removal from the throne that it has placed itself on for at least two centuries.

Part III; What’s Left of the “Left” in the “Left”:

A very brief and quick look at the post USSR Western “left” reveals that it did everything BUT stick to its original principles and ideals.

To elaborate, we must look at certain examples; beginning with the highly controversial subject of refugees. The “left” in the West continues to uphold the principle of aiding and welcoming refugees, and this is good and ought to be applauded. However, the “left” does not even seem to question how those refugees have become refugees in the first place! Whilst it is a fact that most refugees are in essence political refugees who have been displaced due to wars inflicted upon their countries, mostly seeking regime change, the Western “left” seems to turn a blind eye to this reality. Even worse, when the Western “left” gets democratically elected and assumes power, it does not try to reverse the course of events that create refugees.

It gets even worse. Take the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as examples. Both wars were initiated by the “right” wing Republican American President GWB. However, his partner in crime in Iraq was Britain’s Labour leader Tony Blair; who was meant to be from the Western “left”.

And whilst the Australian Labor Party (ALP) can hold its head high because it was an ALP Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) who bailed Australia out of the infamous Vietnam War, other ALP administrations have followed the USA into wars without too many questions asked about their legitimacy and whether or not they conform with the foundations and principles upon which the ALP is based.

Such views and politics have nothing to do with the original “left” values of promoting freedom, supporting the oppressed and working towards social justice; none what-so-ever, and quite the opposite, if anything.

And even though APHEDA, an organization sponsored by Australian trade unions, supports and sponsors humanitarian projects in Palestine, the current ALP leader Bill Shorten has recently described Israeli PM Netanyahu as a friend.

The contradictions within the Western “left” are not the result of a deliberate attempt to create confusion, but rather the direct outcome of loss of identity and soul, and an inability to reinvent itself in the post-USSR New World Order era.

A proper reinvention process requires new ideas, but instead of undergoing a serious process of soul-searching, the Western “left” shopped around for existing populist issues to capitalize on.

For fairness, when the wider community develops and evolves in a manner that it advocates such issues as marriage equality, political parties will need to listen and respect the wish of the community that it is meant to uphold and attempts to govern. It was therefore a democratically and demographically-driven shift when Western “left” parties became advocates of gender equality at all levels, including marriage equality, and for listening to their constituencies, they ought to be applauded.

That said, moves of this nature lose any genuine intention behind them if and when not done in conjunction with other new moves and directions.

It would therefore not be too cynical to say that in this particular instance, ie the issue of LBGT rights, that Western “left” parties have simply jumped on an existing and popular band wagon.

Here, we must stop and remember that whilst the Obama Administration has approved marriage equality within the United States of America, it continued to endorse the Saudi Government that does not give women the right to even drive a car. Furthermore, that same administration has helped and abetted the Saudi regime in attacking and bombing Yemen and creating a human disaster and starvation that no one in the West, including the most “progressive” parties in the “left” are trying to put an end to; let alone seem to know about.

This is not to forget the support fighters associated with Al-Qaeda and ISIL in Syria and Libya have received from the USA and EU nations; including the so-called socialist “left” French Government of President Hollande. And when we make such exposures, we should not vindicate the Western “left” in opposition in nations like the UK, Australia and in the recent past in Canada.

There was not a word, not a whisper to stop the onslaught of those wars, and if anything, the West as a whole, either directly by the action of “left” governments or by the tacit support of “left” opposition, has been actively engaged in financing and supporting the most oppressive world regimes and helping finance, arm, and facilitate the activities of fundamentalist terror organizations.

And speaking of Obama, just by virtue of being a President from the Democratic Party, he was assumed to be from the “left” side of Western politics; and which admittedly is not as hawkish as the Republican Party. But one would wonder, in the true essence of the “left” philosophy, what was/is it exactly in Obama and the American Democratic Party that was/is remotely “left” in its ideals? After all, it was Democratic Presidents who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, started the Vietnam War and created Al-Qaeda. It was the Democratic Obama who led the EU to the brink of war with Russia over Ukraine; and ironically did so by supporting the ultra-right Ukrainian Neo-Nazis. How bizarre indeed!

Where is anything that can be even remotely referred to as “left” in these actions and endorsements?

It would be therefore fair to say that with the attempts to reinvent the “left” in the West, the original principles were cast away and fantasy that is very alien to the “left” doctrine seems to have taken precedence over genuine revolutions.

This is not a call to take arms and to go back to the days of revolutions. Humanity has had plenty of that already. But to honour the spirit of Guevara all the while helping the Saudis bomb Yemen and Al-Qaeda to destroy Churches in Syria is grossly hypocritical to say the least, and forms a blatant exposure of the rot and moral bankruptcy that seems to have overtaken Western “left” movements and governments.

Without giving a lesson in history, but when Angola was under attack, Castro sent troops to help; not for any gain for Cuba at all. Whether or not one endorses this action, but that was what a “revolutionary” leftist leaders who is true to his word was supposed to do, and certainly Castro epitomized this image. If we compare Castro’s action to current leaders of the “left”, it becomes therefore fair to say that issues such as global justice are no longer on the Western “left” agenda. If we go further and say that the Western “left” has directly and indirectly been involved in creating more global injustice, it then becomes imperative to concede that the Western “left’ has become a part of problem; not the solution.

So what is really left of the “left” in the “left”? One wonders.

In reality and practice, the “left” concept was reduced to only be contingent upon supporting such issues as gender equality issues and environmental awareness; but all with a huge taint of unrealistic political correctness that bogs it down and blinds its vision from focusing on other important issues.

Even when getting facts and having them laid out to members of the Western “left” on a silver platter, they do not seem to understand that, for example, one cannot only look at certain issues of social justice, whilst totally ignoring one’s country involvement in needless wars that are flooding the world with refugees.

What is also mind-boggling about the Western “left” is its love-hate relationship with mainstream media (MSM). They opt to disbelieve their tabloids and bulletins when they themselves are the victims, but the moment someone else gets his neck under the chopping board of the MSM, instead of putting two and two together and coming up with the conclusion that the MSM make lies not only about them, but also about others, instead of putting two and two together to end up with rational conclusions, they conveniently opt to adopt the easy way out and believe the lies about others whom they choose to dislike.

Where is the sense of fairness in this attitude? What happened to the aspiration for global justice?

Rather shamelessly, they are now crying tears of blood to see Obama finish his term, in a clear indication that they are either unaware of the carnage of his warmongering policy or that they know, but they don’t care. However, when one brings out the facts to them and shows them that Obama has created havoc in Libya, Syria, Yemen and many other corners of the world, and when one presents evidence about the tens of thousands of innocent people who perished as a result, they can no longer argue that they did not know. This is a serious indictment because it ultimately means that they have not only abandoned their lofty ideals of global justice, but also that they blatantly do not give much consideration at all to Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni lives. This makes them racists to the extreme, and they can jump up and down decrying the accusation, but their actions and inactions show their true colours.

In principle, to take the fight against global injustice and racism from the “left” would be tantamount to taking Jesus Christ out of Christianity. But try saying this to today’s alleged “leftists”.

What is most bizarre perhaps is the fact that the notion of speaking about reform with the western “left” is a taboo subject. This is quite oxymoronic to say the least. After all, the “left” is meant to signify reform, is it not? So, what is really and truly left of the “left” in the “left”?

Apart from the name tag, what is left of the “left” in “the Western left” and the “left” in general is a combination of remnants of old ideas mashed together with some new-age fantasies that only merge in minds that do not seem to be able to understand the concept of compatibility. This brings back the issue of rationality, and in this case, the lack of it. There is at best very little left about today’s “left” that is well and truly “left” in its core. It’s a muddled up world of juvenile-minded dreamers and screamers, figments of a bygone past, regressive mutants who seem to run more on superficial and distorted vision rather than principles and rationality.

The truth of the matter is that the “left” is dead, and it cannot be rebirthed; unless it admits its past and present failures and rebuilds itself on its original political doctrine with a clear understanding that its objective is to achieve justice and equal rights for all humans all over the world.

At the end of the day, politics is politics, and at best, it provides the right environment for human awakening. At best, it is the prerequisite and not the ultimate objective, and for this reason, it ought to be built on ethical foundations. For as long as this form of political and ethical rationality is not the corner stone of political activism that is meant to be part-and-parcel of human awakening, any journey with any other objective(s) will fail, and history is full of such examples, and all that humanity needs to do is to look back at its past failed steps to learn.

Part IV; The Seemingly Emerging New Left

In the absence of mainstream political movements pushing for change and reform, the human aspiration for change did not go away. Not even the Western Churches, with their former draconian punishments, were able to stifle humanity and prevent it from demanding awakening and better living conditions.

Demanding change is a part of human nature, and people do this at many levels and even when it comes to mundane things like rearranging their furniture. And whilst the bigger changes they seek and pursue do not always end up with positive outcomes, the desire for change does not go away.

And as the traditional Western “left” and “right” formed the establishment and ran it in accordance with electoral alternation, the differences between them shrank and continued to shrink.

They might have continued to differ on rather minor issues such as government funding of certain projects, where to drop taxes and where to lift them, where to prioritize public spending, their relationships with trade unions and other management issues, but on basic philosophical and doctrinal matters such as global justice, they became almost identical. Ironically, they are both in denial as to how identical they are, even though their constituencies keep telling them that they perceive them as being so.

They try hard to scorn each other and quarrel over petty matters in desperate attempts to recreate the schism that once separated them, but to no avail. If even the mighty Catholic Church reached a point in time when it was no longer able to fool people, they will need to acknowledge that their power of swaying opinion and fooling people will not work.

They conjure up all tricks to accentuate the little difference they have left between them, but they also often go back to adopt some former policies of their political foes. When the Australian Liberal Party was in opposition in the 1980’s, it vehemently fought the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) so-called “Option C” in which Paul Keating, the then treasurer, advocated the need for introducing a consumption tax. Yet, the Liberal John Howard’s Government was unapologetic when it introduced it nearly a decade later. That said, the ALP was also unapologetic when it voted against introducing it, even though it was originally an ALP idea.

Western voters grew increasingly dissatisfied with their political leaders, and the percentage of citizens who actually vote in countries in which voting is not compulsory is a simple reflection.

Even in a highly decisive and highly controversial election like the recent American presidential elections, 90 million eligible voters out of 231 million did not vote. This is nearly a whopping 40%.

This is democracy in action, and ironically in this instance, perhaps a reflection of the distrust of American voters in the version of democracy that the two-party system has been pushing down their throats for a very long time. Not even a rally like the Clinton-Trump battle was enough to motivate them.

That said, the 60% who did vote, voted with a loud and clear message; but are the major parties listening? One really wonders.

There was a major twist in this election. The Republican candidate Donald Trump has actually won the elections without the support of his party. As a matter of fact, many Republican heavy weights did not endorse him and made statements that they were not going to vote for him.

Against protocol, former President George Bush Senior did not even attend the inaugural ceremony.

It is not by accident that Trump is not liked either by his Democrat foes or by his supposed Republican “comrades”. After all, he has broken the mold and based his campaign on seeking change, the kind of change that neither party wants to address, let alone bring up.

What worries the Western “right” and “left” about Trump is the fact that he has seemingly created a new force in politics and managed to get in from an open window that they least expected and one previously unheard of; the window of the “Conservative Revolution”

The impact of the “Conservative Revolution” is perhaps not any less virulent in Western politics than the impact of the age of European enlightenment was on the Church. Only time will tell.

Would it be too immature and inconceivable to say that for the major Western political parties the worst is yet to come? A close-up look at them reveals that the Trump phenomenon is likely going to be the beginning of an avalanche that will politically sweep the West and push the reset button on its party-based infra-structure.

In the opening article titled “The Conservative Revolution”, and which was not meant to be an opening article per se but rather a stand-alone one, I expressed my views about how the move of the traditional Western “right” and “left” moved to the centre, and how in doing so, they created separate vacuums in the left and right, and which were filled by the Greens and Ultra-Right, respectively.

What is intrinsically pertinent is the fact that when people are denied the opportunity for change, they will find a way to seek it.

Traditionally, the drive for change came from below; from the masses. That was how the mother of all revolutions, the French Revolution, was created.

Traditionally also, the conservative reasoning behind maintaining the status quo came from above; if from authority itself (as in the case of France’s Louis the XVI), the social and financial upper crust, or both.

The financial divide had been a major driving force that divided the ‘haves and the have nots’; those who wanted change from those who resisted it.

However, as different contemporary ideologies – political, financial, doctrinal or otherwise – seem to stem from perspectives and objectives that are invariably partial in their views, selective in their outlooks, and primarily irrational in their rationales to varying degrees; they will always eventually fall down and crumble because they all have their own and specific Achilles heel, and their heels will all be struck once they run out of steam and luck.

Thus, what was seen as a triumph of Capitalism over Communism when the USSR crumbled was in reality a forerunner for Capitalism to come to terms with reality of the forthcoming demise of its own two-party system if not more.

There is undeniably a new and unprecedented political move on the rise in the West, and if the traditional custodians of alternating Western parties in power have an iota of rationality and long-term vision, they ought to stop and look at their own status quo, and at what size hole they have dug up in the middle of the path of their own political future.

In their denial to the proximity that was created by their bi-partisan agreement on major issues, little did they see that in doing so, they had signed a mutual death warrant for each other. Little did they realize that for them to be perceived to be on opposite sides, they needed to demonstrate that they were not only the opposite sides of the same coin, but opposite in every way that was related to their modus operandi. But they did not.

The masses do not go by what is dictated to them, and right or wrong, they will invariably go against the stream when they feel marginalized and ridiculed. If anything, the more they feel they have been marginalized and ridiculed, the more vehement they become in standing up against the offender. And if the offender is the authority, the more they will be inclined to revolt.

As the “left” is clearly no longer what it used to be, and as the “right” is losing more support from its traditional power base because it is seen as being almost identical to the “left”, the drive for change had to open up for itself a new window for self-expression.

This brings us back to the issue of human awakening.

Trump’s “Conservative Revolution” is ideologically and philosophically not in a position to offer humanity an enlightened alternative by any stretch of imagination.

That said, it is presenting a challenge, a real and significant challenge.

For the West in general and the United States in particular to ignore the events that led to the election of Trump as President would be foolhardy. To blame the happening on Russia is ridiculous and laughable.

At the present time, the West is no longer divided on the Cold-War-Take-One divide of Capitalism versus Communism. It is no longer divided on any remaining remnants of that divide that once distinguished “right” from “left” Western politics either.

At the present time, the political divide that separates the traditional major parties in the West is increasingly becoming one that is only seen in the eyes of those parties and their loyal voters. But it is not the loyal voters who decide who wins elections.

The swinging voters and those who do not vote, at least not on a regular basis, are indeed those who make that decision, and their decision is becoming more prominent.

With his business background, Trump may apply fiscal business pragmatism and run the USA as a business. Whilst this sounds like an abhorrent prospect, in reality, it may mean relief to millions around the globe who wish for a cessation of American attempts of further regime changes that serve them with American-style democracy, courtesy of B-52’s.

The “Conservative Revolution” is the slap in the face that both major parties in all Western democracies need and deserve to get. At best however, it cannot be expected to be much better than just that. It is inadvertently the emerging and still ill-defined force for change; ironically a “new left”; even though it does not bear any ideological resemblance to Guevara’s “left”, but rather just by definition of seeking change.

In reality, for as long as people continue to look at each other as groups and nations of conflicting interests, they will find a reason to quarrel. They will only stop once they see that what unites them is much stronger and much more profound, and they cannot and will not do this until they seek proper awakening; the kind of awakening that ancient Greek Philosophers and the European philosophers taught and sought. Religion was meant to be an awakening, but sadly it was hijacked by institutions, twisted, diverted and turned into a tool for suppression rather than liberation.

Will humanity employ the Trump election win as a precursor and a reminder and an incentive to go back to the roots of the age of awakening? This may sound like a huge and a far-fetched call, but in reality, awakening does not necessarily need a huge nudge for it to commence.

At the end of the day, and going back to basics mentioned in an earlier article in this series, meddling with the minds of people is a serious crime. Technically, it is not defined as a form of genocide. It is not; it is much more serious.

Politics and ethics should go hand in hand, and when they don’t, we see events akin to what humanity is experiencing now.

Humanity will survive and will bring out its best, and the best is yet to come.

At the end of the day again, darkness will never be able to overcome light any more than it can stop the light of a candle from breaking darkness and disabling its light from reaching huge distances. Such is the power of light over darkness, because no intensity of darkness can stifle a single humble candle.

And finally, at the end of the day, political movements, right, left, conservative revolutions or otherwise, including the multitude of religious factions and schools, none of them mean much at all, unless they offer humanity the real salvation it needs. And the salvation of humanity will not come from politics and politicians.

But if one looks at different versions of the definitions of salvation, defining salvation as an outcome of knowledge is a definition that cannot be surmounted except by those who prefer ignorance.

Part V; The Establishment Strikes Back

With the backlash to the election and inauguration of President Trump, we are witnessing unprecedented events indeed. Certainly, much of this is based on his controversial “Executive Orders”, and this is well expected; especially the one relating to visa restrictions and the trauma and anxiety it is causing. However, in a major twist of events, and among many other things, we see THE American President attacking the Western Mainstream Media (MSM) and his Press Secretary Sean Spicer warning them that they will be held accountable.

Just a very short time ago, Obama’s Press Secretaries Robert Gibbs and later on Josh Earnest were playing “I scratch your back and you scratch mine” with the same MSM; feeding each other with stories they both loved to hear and making conclusions that suited their “business” agendas.

For decades, the machine of the “establishment” has been none but the so-called “Deep State” represented by the White House, and it’s figurehead was none but the incumbent President whoever he was. Even the seemingly benign, humane and smiley Jimmy Carter was a part of that “establishment” and its “Deep State”, and so was the former President, who promised to be unlike any other; former President Obama, the suave-looking self-made African American with his eloquence, elegant wife and perfect looking family, the President who promised the earth to end up providing scorched earth, and instead of providing hope, millions across the globe looked forward to the day they gave him the title “former president”.

Of course, those shedding crocodile tears for the departure of Obama and rampaging the streets of America and the world do not know or care to know about the carnage the Obama administration has caused across the globe; because they have such a narrow agenda of interests, and because what they are trying to protect is not human rights and women as they proclaim, but certain privileges that they personally possess and only some Western women.

That infamous “establishment” is best described as a pyramid, an octopus if one wishes, but one with a virtually countless number of legs and tentacles, and they all feed off the figurehead, and the head does not only feed them, but offers them raison d’être, protection and all that they need for sustenance and continuity.

Just like Tolkein’s Orcs cling to Sauron and imbibe their life and existence from him, the satellite entities of the “establishment” have always considered the American President to be the apex of the pyramid, the symbol, the be-all-and-end-all being, a god, upon whom their very existence depended; even when they claimed otherwise.

So when the head of the “establishment” turns away from his minions, their struggle for survival kicks in, not only because they need to survive, but also because in his departure, they inadvertently become all what is left of the “establishment” and that for them to restore their might and glory, they will first need to make sure that the “establishment” must restore its own stature first, and for this reason, it ought to strike back; albeit at the head that is meant to be its own.

Thus far, Trump is keeping his election promises; and this is to the utter disappointment and shear horror to what is left of the “establishment”.

In all of their divisions, alliances, and private/personal aspirations, they had been hoping and praying that the moment he got elected he was going to renege on major election promises. He did not. They hoped that the moment he sat in the Oval Office he would then turn his back on his election promises, and thus far he hasn’t. This is not to say that he will not, but thus far, he hasn’t.

But unlike the Orcs who were engulfed into the fissures in the earth which were generated after Frodo destroyed the “ring”, what is left of the “establishment” did not, and was not expected to cease to exist the moment the head was no longer sitting on its shoulders. After all, some of the satellites of the “establishment” are much more intelligent and conniving than Orcs; even though at heart, there is little difference that separates them.

The intelligent ones are capitalizing on the principle of “controlled opposition”; a strategy they developed for other nations in the past, in nations they wanted to destabilize, and this had worked effectively in many places. Now, they are trying this technique at home, and thus far it is working.

The technique is based on conjuring up a populist issue that inflames emotions enough to mobilize people to take to the streets; if not more. We saw this technique work quite effectively in Egypt, Libya and other places. It almost succeeded in Syria.

Those monsters specialize in social engineering, and they capitalize on the goodness in humanity and the desire that good people have for making things better. So they flag huge issues such as liberty (as in the case of Egypt), dictatorship (as they did in Libya and Syria), and they find thousands upon thousands of youth rising up in defense of those principles.

They are playing similar cards now, but this time, they are doing this within the United States of America. They are using a number of anti-Trump trump cards; including misogyny, racism, and Islamophobia.

They are desperately striking back in a life-or-death attempt that can secure their survival. What is ironic about this “strike back” is that it is banking on a support base that is extremely diverse, or at best multi-based.

Throughout history, foot soldiers have either been forcefully drafted or mobilized by some human passion; and this takes us back to the issue of the genocidal concept of meddling with peoples’ minds. The foot soldiers therefore are not the ones to blame; not now, and not at the time when the Catholic Church mobilized waves upon waves of soldiers to take back the Holy Land from the Muslim infidels.

However, unlike the revolutionaries of Soviet and post-Soviet eras, unlike the Al-Qaeda and ISIS Jihadists, the foot soldiers of the post-Obama presidency era do not have any hierarchal foundation at all. They do not have neither a specific agenda nor leadership, neither a preamble nor a strategy, and above all, the diverse backgrounds they have beggars beliefs as to what unites them.

This is because those who move them and motivate them are similar to the former initial enemies of Syria who were only united by their hatred of Syria and her President. And now, the leaders of the protests of America, who are changing the protests into riots, are united by their hatred for Trump; full stop.

And speaking of those different backgrounds, here is an interesting list of those who are anti-Trump; both overtly and covertly. The list includes the “Deep State”, Soros and his NGO’s, Murdoch and his tabloids, the Neo-Cons, the Saudi Royal family, ISIL, and of course; the Western “left”. Need one list more?

Now here is the pertinent question to ask. How do the leaders of the Western “left” feel at ease being associated with those monstrous people and organizations? Do those alleged defenders of women actually know and worry about the fact that they are currently comrades in arms with the Saudi regime? This is the world’s most oppressive anti-women regime, a regime in which women are not only forbidden to vote, but they are not allowed to drive cars either.

And how about the association with Obama himself? The President who bombed more foreign nations than any other, the one who has caused global havoc and destruction? Are the people he killed less human in the eyes of the leaders of the Western “left”? Obviously, they are.

The demise of the Western “left” has to be first and foremost blamed on the demise of its leaders and think-tanks. After all, it is leaders who pave the way and set objectives and strategies to achieve them.

But the blame game has to turn inwardly at some stage, because individuals cannot blame others for all of their actions. They can blame them for misguiding them, but surely, those individuals must reach a point in time at which they must assume at least some responsibility and be able to do their own soul-searching.

Sadly, many leaders and foot soldiers of the Western “left” alike do not seem to be remotely close to the realization that they have failed their own doctrine.

By turning the blind eyes to global social justice, the leaders of the Western “left” have reduced the struggle for freedom and awakening to specific agendas only restricted to gender equality, LBGT rights and global warming issues; and no one was “allowed” to bring in any other subject. And what a short-sighted and moronic definition some of them have to gender equality! Rather than pushing for equality in its literal sense, they want to impose equal numbers of men and women in certain positions. Why do they want to take the suppression of women into another wrong twist? One wonders. Isn’t equality supposed to be meritorious in nature? And what if in a certain area there are more qualified women than men? Do we still need to have 50% male representation?

Such a vision of gender equality is very ill-conceived indeed, and does not serve women’s rights, not the least.

And how can the alleged protectors of women turn a blind eye to the sex slave industry inflicted upon the war-torn countries in which their nations, and even respected leaders, have poked their noses?

Yes, what about the sex slaves that Obama allowed to be bought and sold under his watchful eyes and tacit quietness? Syrian and Iraqi girls as young at 10 years old were bought by filthy old Saudi, Gulfie and Qatari pedophilic men as sex slaves. Where were Meryl Streep and Madonna? Don’t Syrian and Iraqi women, and young girls, deserve protection by those alleged protectors of women? Obviously not. We did not hear a single word, not a whisper from the hundreds of thousands of them.

The West, and its “left”, cannot hide and pretend that the slave industry took off after ISIL (its alleged enemy) took control after June 2014, as facts on the ground clearly indicate that the sex slave industry started very early in the mark at a time when the West fully and overtly endorsed all anti-government forces in Syria, at times when John McCain was visiting them and taking photoshoots with them, and at times when Australia’s then Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr was calling for the assassination of President Assad.

Does the Western “left” have any intelligence or sense of shame left in it at all?

The global “left” supporters are now up in arms, not because of Trump’s infamous grabbing quote, but because he has destroyed the “establishment”; their establishment, and they are fighting for the restoration of their stature.

And how does the woman who rose to infamy by parading in a vagina dress believe that she is presenting, upholding and protecting women? Is this how she regards women? As vaginas? This is the lowest, most demeaning and most appalling act of objectifying women that I have ever seen or expected to live long enough to see. To her I would like to say that to me, women are my late and beloved mother and grandmother, my aunts, my daughter, my wife, my daughters-in-law, my nieces, my cousins, my friends and their friends, my neighbours, and all other women that I know, respect and love. The women I do not know, when I need to communicate with them not knowing their names, I give them the respectful titles such as madam and the like. I do not see them as vaginas and they do not represent themselves as vaginas.

The demeanour of the vagina dress woman is far worse than Trump’s infamous grabbing statement, but yet, no one seems to be making any comments to condemn her. If anything, she seems to be seen as a heroine.

This woman is clearly a pervert of some sort, and social misfits like her know well that for decades now, they have decimated and destroyed what is known as the “good old values”, and they also know that there are millions upon millions of people across the globe who are sick and tired of their hypocritical antics. They know that the decent people of the world are growing impatient with their debauchery and despicable demeanour.

For decades, they have capitalized on the kindness and acceptance of the majority of people who have endorsed them, protected them, and accepted them. This is because it is the decent majority of people who are the true custodians of democracy and freedom of expression; not them. It is the efforts and sacrifices of the decent majority that resulted in the creation of those attributes in civilized societies; not theirs.

My animated outcry is that of an old leftie who feels that his movement has been hijacked. I feel that the leadership of the Western “left” has fallen off the track, they are not listening to their elders. They are either so politically unsavvy that they don’t know that they have fallen into the traps of the “establishment” they were meant to stand up against, or that they have been fooled to allow to be dragged into it unknowingly. Either way, they have given the reins to a bunch of brainless scavengers, mental retards who are true Fascists in every manner of thought and demeanour. And they are all striking back together, their establishment is striking back with them, because they know that they have been decapitated and that the rest of the world has had enough of them.

If I am sounding angry, it is because I have already lost my country of birth Lebanon and was driven out of it more than 3 decades ago because the progressive atmosphere and movements that I grew up among in the fifties and sixties were all replaced by fundamentalism and strife. In the last 5-6 years, I saw the same happen to my maternal Syrian cousins and family, and for the same reasons. An age of enlightenment was just beginning to dawn in the Middle East and was hijacked by the radical religious movements that swept and destroyed everything in their path.

And now, in my adopted homeland Australia, the country I love and dedicate my heart to, is slipping into an opposite but yet very similar radicalism. That was totally unforeseeable only a few years ago, and there is no force to blame but the “left” and how it allowed itself to morph from an impetus for moving forward to a step back into different forms of spiritual debasement and lack of concern for global justice and national sovereignty.

This may sound like an ultra-right propaganda, but in reality it is not. It is the “left” who has abandoned the principles of the true left and turned it from a force of change and liberation to a force towards breakdown of society and family values. If by endorsing those values and virtues I will be branded a right-wing zealot, then so be it, because as a die-hard true leftie, I do not see any association between my principles and values with what is left of the left in the “left”.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

54 Comments

Great articles! Yes, and all the madness has been done for the benefit of a small global elite… Their policies were bad in so many aspects – economic, social, environmental… – as this neoliberal transnational elite consolidated a global market economy that enriched just a few at the expenses of the rest of the peoples of the world and the environment. As the world economy has now been marketized, they realise that there is no more space for empires because all nations are equally exploited – so, the US is like any other country for the elite to exploit. They actually used the US military power to impose their rule. What really matters for that elite is freedom to grow capital selling their commodities and freedom to exploit labour and the environment. The crisis is not of capital, but social and environmental. This elite is the real enemy of humanity and the planet. Nations should actually unite to fight together against this real enemy.

From an inclusionist perspective, it is clear the French revolution was not the “first” to speak of human solidarity, fraternity, and social justice, nor rise against the concentrated power of kings or aristocrats. Spartacus already did that (of those known to us), and, as the commentator says, the German peasant rebellions had that character too, and are entirely noteworthy. (It is equally noteworthy that Martin Luther, something of a revolutionary in his own right, as he rose against the putrid power of the Catholic church, did NOT choose to defend the peasant rebellions and sided four-squarely with the princely powers, agitating for maximum punishment).

Later, the English Civil Wars saw the brave Levellers present demands that also contained democratic, egalitarian clauses (their ideas later influenced Tom Paine among others). The said, it was the French Revolution that presented humanity with the most mature version of such philosophical concepts, including a republic based on and led by “virtuous” men, an idea borrowed from Montesquieu.

Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there were numerous peasant uprisings in Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic). This area was bastion of reformist agitation and even revolutionary thinking. Cf. Jan Hus.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus

There are many incontrovertible truths in this article, and I for one deeply appreciate it, but some of its foundational aspects contain errors that go to very heart of the confusion the author rightly decries.

To mention just one: In tracing the history of the “left” the author correctly says that it was the French revolution that marked the zenith of the ideas of the enlightenment, and that the “American revolution” for all its pretensions was hardly more than a self-serving revolt that, in essence, preserved the property distributions of the ancien regime, minus the monarchic structure. From that point on, the author swiftly dismisses Marx as some sort of corrupter of the ideas of the French revolution, instead of its top interpreter and propagator. To say that that judgment is arbitrary is to put it mildly. Marx’s place in history as a colossal revolutionary figure against the oncoming continuation of the old deeply class-divided order under new pretenses (capitalist “democracy”) is undisputed by any sophisticated and fair observer of modern history.

Further, the author launches an attack on “the left” in which the revolutionary, egalitarian left—extinguished in some places and debilitated by the attacks of its enemies, as well as errors in policy at some critical junctures (but by no means comparable to the “errors in leadership” we see among capitalist elites, which are errors by design and inherent in a system that being a plutocracy and never a democracy is an imposture by definition) is suddenly transmogrified into its historical negation, capitalist collaborators in both liberalism and social democratic clothes.

Elementary clarity and consistency when using political labels requires us to keep some basic things straight: social democrats, not since they betrayed the antiwar effort in WW1, particularly in Germany and France, choosing warmongering chauvinism over human solidarity across borders, have not been avatars of a true left but collaborators and willing fronts and occasional managers in the expanding global regime of capitalism.

It should be clear that the same can be said for the plague of middle class liberals, who, especially in the United States, have long usurped the label “left”, supported the imperialist aggressions of the United States for almost a century, and in general abandoned the working class to its fate, while still pretending solidarity. A similar treacherous buffoonery can be seen in Britain, with the rightwing push of the Labour party by figures we can now define as the “Blairite gang”, whose kowtowing to and complicity in the crimes of the US empire should elicit nothing but revulsion. Incidentally, to the shame of France, once a nation that could spot a phony in an instant, the French, too, at least their political class of middle class, Americanized bureaucrats and media have sold out French sovereignty and made France another vassal state in Washington’s corral. I anticipate with some degree of pleasure the downfall of this class of pseudo-leftists, these treacherous liberals, by reconstituted rightwing forces which, ironically, represent much saner policies than those upheld by these cliques of international war criminals, shills, and austerity peddlers in behalf of the 0.000001%.

The author, by the way (in referring to the EU’s policy of accepting refugees) is totally correct in saying that the Left is just being consistent with its ideals of embracing anyone (i.e., political refugee) seeking asylum from devastations at home or imposed tyranny. He sagely adds that while leaders such as Merkel and Hollande may have followed such policies, sure to dislocate their societies considering the horrendous numbers injected in such a short time, the same leadership has also hypocritically refused to recognize or even address the issue of why these masses of refugees exist in the first place. Who and what caused this monumental human catastrophe?

The author touches the rawest nerve here, for, indeed, If they posited that question, the entire liberaloid establishment prevalent throughout Western Europe would have to indict itself, for it is undeniable that it was their filthy collaboration and active support—including outright initiatives, like Anglo-French aggression on Libya and underhanded “partnership”— with the US and the GCC satraps in the rape of Syria which caused the disaster that now threatens to engulf all of Western Europe and change its complexion forever.

Meanwhile, this corrupt, utterly corporatized and phony globalist “left” —spearheaded by PC politicians and media on both sides of the Atlantic—has supported its claim to lead the world in progressivism by substituting “identity politics” for an old-fashioned, robust class struggle, strong national independence, the quest for justice at all times, and the fight against fanatical obscurantism. This has been a historically unprecedented betrayal of what constitutes the real left project for humanity.

Of course, at the “nitty gritty” level, we can hardly speak of a genuine left being responsible for all the crimes and mess imputed by the author to the “left” when many of the creators, leaders and enforcers of such “left” policies are out-and-out reactionaries and corporatists ranging from Polish aristocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski (who advised Jimmy Carter) to Angela Merkel, David Cameron, and a coterie of other miscreants and Nuremberg-class opportunistic criminals like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The fact is that in all such cases we should simply use the term “liberal”, or corporatist/globalist liberal if one wishes to be fine-tune the concept a bit further.

It’s a confusing world out there, hence the need for utmost clarity and precision at all times.

I hope this critique is not interpreted as my being ungrateful for a solid and most interesting read.

For starters, it is indeed a ‘liberalism’ – actually the social variant of neoliberalism, as all the ’causes’ espoused are a) bankrolled by the plutocracy and b) actually require an underclass/war for their realization.

Thank you for your brief and lucid comment on the original article by Safi. I understand his “cris de coeur” about the self-destruction of the western “left” as a consequence of its betrayal of the fundamental ideals of liberation from injustice and oppression and should, as you have done, appreciate his work and contribution to the debate about the demise of a socialist voice in the political world, although occasionally there were lapses of intellectual rigour. His exposition of the betrayal of the Australian Labour Party – the rot started with the leader of the trade unions Bob Hawke – is a clear illustration of how the elites highjack a social movement and drive it to adopt positions against its fundamental principles. It had been done before (e.g. Khrushchev) and after (e.g. Blair) and will be done again and again unless the “silent left” (the millions who are deeply committed to the great ideals of the French Revolution) finds a voice and a banner to lead it to break the power of capitalism once and for all. The first left leader who compromises in any way with the establishment, for expediency or political tactics, let alone personal gain, should be summarily pilloried at the first hint of deviation. Even better, there should not be a “leader”, but collective leadership with frequent rotations to prevent the emergence of elitism and cliques. This is one of the grand lessons of history – all leaders are potential traitors – and it is the duty of all to ensure that their representatives are true to their constituency, similarly to the Soviets’ right of recall (dismiss) at any time.

“Western Churches had for centuries controlled the minds of their flocks. As a matter of fact, the term “flock” is quite befitting, because they did regard them as mindless sheep. For many generations, they have told them what to believe in, how to think, what subjects to discuss and what to stay away from.”

No, he’s simply parroting the ‘official’ AngloZionist narrative, the Jewish narritive so to speak.
I’m not saying western Christianity wasn’t occasionaly pretty corrupt, at the time of Martin Luther for instance, but the real ‘Renaissance’ was rather in the ‘Middle Ages’, Christianization, monasteries, progress, development, and so forth.
Then came the renaissance of barbarism, monstrosity, looting, ravaging faraway countries, abject misery & crual (mass) slavery (industrialization), which all but destroyed the world. To make it sound ‘better’ (the other way around), the organizers called it ‘Enlightenment’, ‘Awakening’, ‘prosperity at all levels’, and so forth (Orwellian Newspeak).

Like western Christianity in many ways turned into complete barbarity in the 16th/17th century, and the pope is now a (Nazi? synagog of Sate?) charlatan, the same goes for traditional, enlightened(Sunni) Islam which is now also dominated by vile, monstrous, barbaric Saudi/Wahhabi/ISIS trash (synagog of Sate).

From an inclusionist perspective, it is clear the French revolution was not the “first” to speak of human solidarity, fraternity, and social justice, nor rise against the concentrated power of kings or aristocrats. Spartacus already did that (of those known to us), and, as the commentator says, the German peasant rebellions had that character too, and are entirely noteworthy. (It is equally noteworthy that Martin Luther, something of a revolutionary in his own right, as he rose against the putrid power of the Catholic church, did NOT choose to defend the peasant rebellions and sided four-squarely with the princely powers, agitating for maximum punishment).

Later, the English Civil Wars saw the brave Levellers present radical demands that also contained democratic, egalitarian clauses (their ideas later influenced Tom Paine, among others). The Levellers were in turn betrayed and suppressed by the stubbornly middle class and technically petty nobleman Cromwell, who could envision and stomach regicide but not a fundamental reordering of the British social matrix.

That said, it was the French Revolution that presented humanity with the most mature version of such philosophical concepts, including a republic based on, and led by “virtuous” men, an idea borrowed from Montesquieu.

I mentioned the “German Peasants War” to the author, who apparently doesn’t know Engels.

About Spartacus specifically, it seems that he just wanted to escape, and failed. Had he create an army and called a rebellion, the World nowadays would be unrecognisable. There would have been no Roman Empire, no Christianity, neither the Latin Languages, except some, cosmopolite like Albanese, in Italic Peninsula. The 3 Americas would speak Phoenician (Cartaginese?) and Scandinavian, maybe.

The Gods opened the way of the lion for him, but he chose the way of the fox. Bad choice for him, and for the slaves in Italy and Sicily.

Nothing to excuse dear friend.
Your comments and insights are spot on and most intriguing. You are quite right that the course of history down to our time could have been much different if Spartacus had taken the more fortunate road.

“Had he (Spartacus) create an army and called a rebellion, the World nowadays would be unrecognisable…”

There are many “ifs” to make billions of hypothetical worlds but yours is an unfortunate choice. Firstly he did create an army about 50,000 strong and called a rebellion – not for socialist ideals though. He even defeated several attempts at submission by Rome. But he was never a threat to the Republic as Crassus had shown when he moved decisively against the rebels. On that ground alone, your supposition that the “World nowadays would be unrecognisable” does not make much sense.
Secondly, in the one-in-a-million chance of Spartacus’s success in defeating Crassus, he would probably become one among many other ambitious Romans candidates for power or, at the best, a precursor of a Caesar or Augustus and the Roman Empire would follow its historical course of transferring civilization from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic as it did.
Spartacus’s was just one rebellion like many others against Rome and it’s about time its insignificance be recognized by those whose world view is shaped by Hollywood.

Your vision (and Engels’ — look “On the History of Early Christianity”) is so conjectural as mine.

No, Spartacus had no army and no authority over his so-called followers, and they never called to topple the slavery regime (they had no explicit ideology), neither worked for a general rebellion of slaves (like that in Sicily some years before). If they did, Crassus, Caesar and Pompeus together would never beat them.

Would Spartacus be a democratic/socialist king? No, of course. But it would stall the expansion of Rome and allow the Carthaginese to dominate the Mediterranean.

Was the Roman Empire a “historical necessity”? Why? Only because it’s difficult to think about Ocidental History without it?

Why not?
Just some positive feedback or a metastable system on the edge of flipping can lead to centuries of results. I generally support the historical currents concept, but even there which way a current may settle on in a bifurcation situation can be accidental — such is with a real stream as when a tree falls on one side or another of a channel, which diverts the water which then erodes it’s own path.

WizOz: If for any reason Rome had been defeated in Century -1, you would say it was a historical necessity too.

Had Rome some technological superiority insurmountable for its concurrents? Was its social and economic order more advanced than theirs? No, it wasn’t. Romans’ military discipline (see Josephus) was its only decisive skill. So, it demanded only a military defeat to fall forever. Phoenicians would restore their power over the Mediterranean… and beyond.

We are far out of topic and this discussion lasts for 3 days now, so I suggest to Saker to publish something about Spartacus.

Love the way Man Safir tears down the curtain of sycophancy enveloping like a toxic fog the political persona of Barack Obama, and his murderous legacy, one of the most repulsive and hypocritical figures produced by the rotten US political establishment in generations—bar none, and that includes Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

Commenting on liberal stupidity and conceits, and Obama’s own abject opportunism and duplicity, Mike Whitney, in a recent piece that pulled no punches, had this to say about the much beloved liberal icon:

“The election of Donald Trump has sent millions of people pouring out onto the streets to protest a man they think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic bully who will destroy US democracy in his quest to establish himself as supreme fascist ruler of the country.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe Trump is a fascist who will destroy America. But where were these people when Obama was bombing wedding parties in Kandahar, or training jihadist militants to fight in Syria, or abetting NATO’s destructive onslaught on Libya, or plunging Ukraine into fratricidal warfare, or collecting the phone records of innocent Americans, or deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, or force-feeding prisoners at Gitmo, or providing bombs and aircraft to the Saudis to continue their genocidal war against Yemen?

Where were they?

They were asleep, weren’t they? Because liberals always sleep when their man is in office, particularly if their man is a smooth-talking cosmopolitan snake-charmer like Obama who croons about personal freedom and democracy while unleashing the most unspeakable violence on civilians across the Middle East and Central Asia.

The United States has been at war for eight straight years under Obama, and during that time, there hasn’t been one sizable antiwar march, demonstration or protest. Nothing. No one seems to care when an articulate bi-racial mandarin kills mostly people of color, but when a brash and outspoken real estate magnate takes over the reigns of power, then ‘watch out’ because here come the protestors, all three million of them!

Can we agree that there is at least the appearance of hypocrisy here?”

You have been busy enlivening the discussion here and I, perhaps giving voice to many others, are very glad of your presence and hope to learn a lot from you. I am sure the Saker community will benefit enormously from your knowledge and perspective as well as your elegant prose.

Thank you, Iman Safi, for saying what so many of us old leftists are feeling about the faux revolution ignited by the victory of a bloviating bully billionaire over a Wall Street-loving neoliberal warmonger. In this short span of years before my red leaf falls from the tree, I often think back upon my experience of the 60s and early 70s, as I watched the social justice movements in which I so hopefully participated give way to a hedonistic, narcissistic counterculture to which I was a stranger. The Civil Rights Movement, the Antiwar Movement, the Feminist Movement, the Environmental Movement, and other interrelated challenges to the status quo judged America by its articulated but yet-to-be realized values and found the nation sorely wanting. The collective demand was that America become what it purported to be. Without such traditional idealism, rooted, like the French Revolution, in universal human rights, no genuine revolution is possible, only shifts in power in an essentially violent, oppressive prison of realpolitik. Schweitzer distilled the most fundamental and comprehensive principle of all that must underlie the rebirth of true civilization: reverence for life.

It was therefore a democratically and demographically-driven shift when Western “left” parties became advocates of gender equality at all levels, including marriage equality, and for listening to their constituencies, they ought to be applauded

Nonsense.

It was a project of the plutocracy to normalize A.R.T. – Artificial Reproductive Technologies, sometimes called ‘reprogenics’ (eugenics-by-stealth.) Redefining the meaning of the word ‘marriage’ has nothing to do with ‘equality’, unlike civil union which did.

It was eagerly embraced by wealthy male gays and Big Pharma initially, as it paved the way to claiming a ‘right’ to children by way of exploiting an international female underclass as breeders or ‘surrogates.’ Only male couples as a cohort require surrogacy in toto due to their behavioral choice – all other cohorts only medically.

As for oppression – identifying as gay deprived no one of civil liberties/freedom – right to vote, education etcetera, unlike bona fide racism, which historically did.

In fact historically, socially-accepted homosexuality in Anciemt Greece ;essentially a male homoerotic cult) – was characterized by slavery: pederasty required a slave class, and the subjugation of women.

The link between the normalizing of surrogacy and gay ‘marriage’ was understood by the French, hence the ‘manif pour tout’ against it, and though the Irish – mostly youth vote – passed it, it was only after assurances that surrogacy would not be legalized:

This is the main bone I had to pick with Mr Safi but I wasn’t in a quibbling mood.

Zero ground should be ceded to the dark occultocracy of self-loathing elites who intend to lock down this spinning rock as their privately owned corporate farm.

Well put points exposing their games of epi-eugenics (self-administered, through elite mind control and social engineering) and the supremacy of crotch consciousness over the cranial.sort!

The trickery includes various measures vectored toward the common aim of the herd culling itself: the attack on testosterone in both males and females, and the replacement of the protective father, husband or brother with the NWO State, for the “New” woman are included strategies, along with replacing costly , potentially rebellious humans (if their testosterone levels are normal, whether male or female…..) with robots, androids., feminized hipsters and neo-feminist harpies.

Am I exaggerating??

What I will bring up, to end this rant, is the recently passed New York City subway law allowing the citation of seated males for the heinous crime of “manspread”. (Due to exterior gonads, men have more difficulty sitting with knees touching each other. You can be cited for the offense of sitting in a normal male fashion on the NYC subway for the crime of taking space away from other passengers…..another reason to “cut them off” and go transgender!……not so subtle hint, hint………..).

Obama better not ride the subways then.
And, on another light note, Canada has invented a new term of gender equality: “Pregnant Person”.
And perhaps best of all is this: “I want to be a woman” Monty Python, Life of Brianhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAc5JqcBPK8

I missed part 1 and the author’s work on the conservative “revolution” (which one?? I am curious to find out…..many have been better called “the Reactionary Revolution”…….although I wouldn’t put Trumpistas in that mold yet, by a long shot…..there are two many awakening souls on board that train, including former “lefties”…. ) but I’ll have to catch up on my reading later.

Right now I am anxious to speak up and urge that the left/right paradigms be laughed out of the political consciousness of an awakening world population for the absolute joke that they have both become, and to note my gratitude for this richly ironic article and the catalytic consciousness- raising role its line of thinking can spread.

That and to employ prophylactic measures (a term used in a chess strategy book I read……also.military??? defense??…..hmmm sex does pervade much consciousness…..) against charges of plagiarism against the author in my Cafe comment late last night (before this article appeared, here, at least!!}:

“Not that there’s much true “left” left of the American Left. It’s disappointing that neither left nor right, for the most part, will criticize Nuttyahoo or other zionist gangsters like him.”

This was an aspect of awakening, IMHO, called “synchronicity”. Even though Iman Safi wrote the article when Obama still had some days in office left, I didn’t read the article elsewhere right away. So, in defense of my identical word play with “left” last night, before this article appeared this morning here, I think I have a right to say that right now (…………….end days of 2016, first month of 2017……………) we were both thinking the right thoughts about what isn’t left of the left, and it’s alright that two people or more who are in their right minds at the right time write the same thing!

I visited the beautiful Lebanon as a child (….’56 or ’57……) and I will allow a few hours of memories and meditations to suffuse my consciousness before continuing with the many,many ideas this fine article has only begun to stir up in me.

The ruling class will use the left or the right at their convenience, depending upon what they want. At this point in history, the left are their preferred handmaidens since they work towards trillion dollar carbon trading floors, global trade deals, unchecked central banks, the elimination of borders, culture, nation-states, and the domination of un-elected corporate globalist organizations. The left also provides an additional advantage for the ruling class … a quick way to divide and conquer any mass dissatisfaction through race-baiting and color revolutions.

I agree with you, people like Soros, they use anything they can, left ideology, nationalism, equal rights but their aim is always the same, profit at people’s expense. Wolfs in sheep’s clothing everywhere. Just like they did with the coup in Ukraine when Nuland was distributing cookies to protesters. What a bunch of twisted people they are, Nuland and Co.

I dont think it is a matter of right vs left or liberal vs conservative… Corruption is just rising to the top in our system. The garbage is floating to the surface and then we have to deal with it. No sense shoving our collective head in the sand.

Dear Iman Safi, let me congratulate for this excellent article. I have very similar ideas regarding the left which lost her real values following the 1988 “first shot” with the Berlin Wall, followed by the bloody events in Romania in 1989 and finally 1991 with the disintegration of USSR. Of course, the initial roots are dating back to Gorbatchow “reforms” and dealings with Bush senior. The “left” values have been changed also in the wake of the Eastern Block demise. In East, has begun a purge against the old socialist values just because they were represented by the communist party. Then begun a period of turbo-capitalism which led to mass employment and total destruction of entire economical sectors by selling them to foreigners or by demolishing them totally. Even today, the economies of those countries have not redressed. The “leftists” from the west were accomplices to all these changes, seeing the new offerings by acquiring new “virgin” markets for their countries products and new skilled labor for their own companies in the west, contributing to a huge mass- migration of workforce, leaving the eastern countries almost empty.
The newly formed political parties (left ones) slowly but surely became the same as those in the west. The EU membership just put the cake on it.

When seeking to understand the actual>/b> nature of the French Revolution, it is well to consider the facts and reasoning presented by Miles Mathis inhttp://mileswmathis.com/frev.pdf

As usual in history, the bigger the event, the more nonsense is written about it, and nonsense which comes to be accepted as history from being repeated so often by so many sources. In this matter (as in everything), if the wind always blows from the same direction, the trees grow crooked.

“Who controls the past controls the future ; who controls the present controls the past.” — George Orwell, “1984”

So true. The control of information surrounding such huge events was a tactic invented long before our time. Were it not for the Trotskyite, tribal hatred of Russia, and do not forget that the grandchildren of the Zionist Bolsheviks are now the Neocon Zionist crazies ‘in the basement’ in Washington, a Russia which is returning to consciousness and health after its great Western-sponsored Naqbas (The ‘color’ revolution of 1917 and Yeltsin) could not be so easily vilified.

We all know the Jews were highly represented in the Bolshevik party, but they also infiltrated the other parties in opposition to Tsarism. Russia was terribly backward and the Jews were, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the intelligentsia of the period. As Lenin commented: “Show me a literate Russian and I see a Jew”

But to state that the Russian Revolution was a Jewish affair is to deny the Russian revolutionaries their deserved claim to be the only successful successors to the French Revolution’s spirit, except for the more recent Cuban Revolution. Besides, the October Revolution spread like wildfire throughout the Russian lands in spontaneous uprisings far from St Peterburg, the seat and head of the Revolution. The litmus test was the Civil War (foreign intervention) and that proved beyond doubt that the Russian people were wholeheartedly behind the Bolsheviks.

Had the October Revolution not succeeded, Hitler’s divisions would have walked into the Russian Empire and the political map of the world – not so rosy as it is – would indeed be very awful to even contemplate. It’s ironic that the USSR saved the world from a virulent form of capitalism but, in doing so, contributed to the emergence of the “soft capitalism” that now rules the world!

the October Revolution spread like wildfire throughout the Russian lands in spontaneous uprisings far from St Peterburg, the seat and head of the Revolution. The litmus test was the Civil War (foreign intervention) and that proved beyond doubt that the Russian people were wholeheartedly behind the Bolsheviks.

Quickly followed by revulsion when the red army staged outrages against common decency like stabling its cavalry horses in Novocherkassk cathedral. Once people saw what the Bolsheviks were really like, that was followed pretty quickly by them being driven out of Don Oblast by the Special Conference.

In reality, abortive uprisings against the Bolsheviks continued into 1923.

The shy little voice of Hasbara. The reality is that “by 1914, the literacy level in Russia had risen to forty-one percent.” The Jews were just 4.13% of total population. There were 37,000 parish schools during Nicholas II reign, obviously unattended by Jews.

Miles is interesting. Dylan. Hitler and now the French Revolution, de-occulted, he aims to prove.

That was the other deeper issue, or bone I wished to pick with Safi (watch your axioms, your assumptions, some things you venerate….they may be false…you are not obligated to love anything but the truth, and it is ok to postpone deciding what is true for a long, long time. As long as is necessary to not seriously err in your assumptions for too long a period of time.

So please re-examine 1789.Mr Safi. And our former frequent commenter Peter J Antonsen so enamored of Jefferson and the Delacroix painting:

“Violent and Libidinal” and often mistaken for portraying the French Revolution. It does not. It portrays July 28, 1830.

Miles mentions Kabbalah and I’ll follow up on many more of his links before I can determine how true his aim is. The vast scope of what Mathis delves into is certainly ambitious enough! So if his track record is to unearth a lot of gold nuggets very efficiently, Ill be getting to know him much better, unless I discover otherwise.

Right now, before having a chance to dig that deep into Miles’ analysis on Kabbalah, I’ll go with my instincts:

Divide and conquer mind control. Left brain/Right brain unbalanced against each other. The accidental seating arrangements of the French National Assembly. Used to manipulate the human race along left/right lines ever since the late eighteenth century.

Now it is seriously breaking down. But it was occulted and fooled almost everyone from the very beginning, and it was so hard not to buy into the either /or choice and say: “Neither!”

For time waits for no one.

As above (in left/right world politics), so below (in the individual players and spectators of politics).

The collective brain of manipulated humanity divided left from right. The individual cerebrums divided left from right. Standard stuff for Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Tarot etc. in terms of their dark practitioners. There may be light practitioners as well that seek balance in themselves and others. But more, it seems, have sought imbalance, fear and control. Enslaved minds, not free minds For it is easier to drive consciousness down than it is to raise it up. The dark ones have the force of gravity on their side! Right??

These imbalances are deeply ingrained in religions, banking, science, as well, and not only politics. It’s time to evolve past this divide and conquer methodology that is thousands of years old, yet still understood by so few.

And what derails so many from the agapic love of truth?

Love of something not quite so lofty:

Eros!!!

The haste of Jefferson and many, many others back then as well as today to “get their rocks off” in one form or another. Over and over again. The human condition. But It just may be evolving. I would certainly not discount that possibility.

People mistakenly take ‘the Left’, ‘the French Revolution’ at face value, not realizing that these movements and machinations, too, are just fashionable sheep’s clothing behind which the money printers and Talmudist wolfs hide. What a farce!

Short:
ALL Left movements, labor unions, social justice warriors, NGO’s, political parties are assets of the ZWO. Bare none.

I am very sympathetic to the author and feel as he does.
But he needs to go a layer deeper.
It was Wall Street and its intelligence agency jackals at the CIA that stroked fear and hatred of Trump to trap the Left into their warmonger agenda that targets Russia.
No doubt they are masters at what they do and it’s amazing to watch.
Now everything is in place for the last step: to bend Trump to their agenda.
Trump will bend; all his people around him are ready to go.
We have about a year of the ‘fake friendship’ with Russia while the US continues its buildup and preparation for the coming catastrophic war that US elites unconsciously hunger for.

Good one! Mr. Safi. two points hopefully to help you make your article better.

1. HW Bush did not attend the Trump inauguration because he was in the hospital or at least this is the excuse. Others refusing to attend made no such effort so I figure this is probably true

2″.UnAmerican Activities Committee “did not draft people it considered traitors to join it : it investigated them and brought them up on charges. Maybe you were writing ironically and I just missed it, but below is a quote from Wikipedia which is factual as far as I remember.

“The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. The HUAC was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties. In 1969, the House changed the committee’s name to “House Committee on Internal Security”. When the House abolished the committee in 1975,[1] its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.”

The author has done a great job of clarifying what “left” really means, at least to the “old left”. But the “old left” is as dead as the dodo (alas!) and the new left’s words can grow meanings faster than a chameleon can change colors, so now “left” or “progressive” can mean whatever a power center with sufficient clout wants it to mean. It can also mean whatever the foolish, the light-brained, or the deluded choose it to mean. Fly the LGBT banner and you can commit ‘peaceful genocide’ a la Obama; talk sweet, go for the big lie, and you can rake in all the loot you want a la the Clintons.

We really should stop using political and ideological labels, since fatal labelling errors abound. Then, hopefully, we will be spared the puzzlement and pain of idiots calling out Obama for being a communist (“commie”); of George Soros being declared a socialist; and of dogmatic calls for “progressives” to make the LGBT crusade their top priority. What the hungry in the world really need, per the “new left”, is more gender-neutral washrooms and gender-neutral marriage laws. The “socialist” George Soros must be laughing every day to the bank, while the “new left” busies itself pondering the best labels to affix on Trump. Is he simply a misogynist and racist or is he really a racist plus fascist? Scratch, scratch, keep scratching your confused brains all you want dear “new lefties” and “progressives”, your politically correct brains will never be able to figure out why the Donald calls a spade a spade. And that is the pain that I share with Iman Safi and the “old left”.

All I see are “dopamine” addicts running around for their next high. Easily manipulated and controlled and their managers are doing just that to get their way. I doubt there is much individualism left in those people to be capable of any rational self sustained thinking.

I suppose for them, being totally “self absorbed” with no regard to any reality nor responsibility to their fellow men even if fellow men are falling dead by the millions as a result of their actions = precious freedom. Most of their actions is even detrimental to their own health!

Those wacky snowflakes shout freedom and fuck in every sentence but ultimately it is just about me, me, me, me and their dopamine high. The problem is that there are so many infected by this attitude and that is something society should think about in preventing.

I hope that the villains who created purposely these vast numbers of disabled people will be held accountable some day, but I know that this wish is stretching it.

Reality may yet intrude on their self absorption , and rather than just being detrimental to their health, it could be fatal.
These snowflakes are completely unprepared for any slight disruption of their safe spaces.

This article purports to discuss the geopolitical situation today and its antecedents back to the French Revolution without any mention of the dominant role played by Rothschilds banksters and their ilk during that time. It is not possible to understand the current global political situation or current politics in the US, Australia or anywhere else without understanding the core part played by the private banksters’ monopoly on money creation and distribution. DITTO re the development of the British Empire after the granting of a monopoly on usurious money creation to the Bank of England in 1694.

The Rothschilds funded the Illuminati to foment the Jacobin organised French Revolution which hugely benefited Jews in France by giving them legitimate political status. Since then The Tribe has covertly dominated French politics. Today they dominate the French government and impose austerity, Russiphobia and excessive Muslim immigration on the French nation to the detriment of the majority of French people who cannot claim dual Israeli nationality.

Marx and Engels et al concocted Communism based on Talmudic principals. Prior thereto Talmudism had infected ‘Western’ political history with the “money” meme and money changing, ie Capitalism, from Babylon until today via Rome, North Africa, Spain, Portugal, Holland and England, and the Black Nobility in Venice.

ALL of the dominant political memes and ideas infecting our world today have been created and promulgated by Pharisees and neo-Pharisee bankers and their shabbos goy minions. For instance terms like “Left” and “Right” have been created and endlessly promulgated to deceive goyim. Even slow learners in the US must be beginning to realise that “Liberals” are not liberal and that Liberals, Democrats and Republicans are mere labels used to deceive and confuse voters into thinking that Rep/Dem agendas and controllers are distinct when they are not.

President Trump is not confused by Talmudic rhetoric. Arguably he is telling the truth (albeit in deliberately obfuscatory language) and is thus exposing the lies that create the dystopia in which we live, thereby starting to “drain the swamp”.
For instance, despite the choke hold the CIA and banksters have on the US polity, Trump has:
• Exposed and destroyed the corrupt US and Western mass media such that anyone who really looks cannot fail to perceive that it is FAKE and a propaganda instrument for banksters, corporatists and their government puppets.
• Exposed the fact that the CIA and ALL 17 US “intelligence” agencies are corrupt manipulators and controllers of the US government and its domestic and foreign policies.
• Exposed “political correctness” for what it really is.
• Destroyed the TTP and TTIP and thus saved the US population and global humanity from the fascist clutches of the banksters and corporatist that would have used them to destroy what was left of the sovereignty of all the nations whose corrupt governments were intent on signing it into law, thus enslave their constituent populations.
• Exposed that the US (and the EU) were actively destroying their constituent nations by swamping them with illegal immigrants, substantial numbers of whom are criminals or terrorists.
• Alerted middle Amerikka and Main Street Amerikka, to the truth that “liberal” globalism has hollowed out US industry causing 93 million Amerikkans to be without employment and thereby reducing the real wages of most Amerikkans in work, and steadily impoverishing at least 90% of Amerikkans.
• Refused to demonise President Putin and Russia thereby defusing WWIII.
• Indicated an intention to deal with China firmly rather than threatening to make war over the South China Sea.

These issues are not trivial and no one else has effectively exposed them. Trump had to successfully run for President to break the mind lock that the governments and the MSM had on information dissemination so that many more Amerikkans (and others) could start to perceive their reality.

I have no idea what the Talmud teaches or says, but I can assure you that neither Marx nor Engels nor the thinkers who contribute to the genesis of Communism were concocters of any political potion. There is a long tradition going back to Plato an probably beyond, where private property was thought of as the source and cause of man’s ills. Sir Thomas More (1478-15350, addressed this concern thus:

“The rich men not only by private fraud, but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the poor some part of their daily living. So whereas it seemed before unjust to recompense with unkindness their pains that have been beneficial to the public weal, now they have to this their wrong and unjust dealing given the name of justice, yea, and that by force of law. Therefore when I consider and weigh in my mind all these commonwealths, which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.”

In more recent times,we have Hume, d’Alembert, Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, de Malby, Condillac, Fourier, Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Morelly and many others, all eighteenth century thinkers, inveighing against private property and proposing communist ideas of liberty, fraternity and equality. The first communist martyr was Francois Noel Babeuf (1797) long before Marx was born.

Although Karl Marx was of Jewish ancestry, he was brought up and, for a time, a devout Lutheran, as was Engels. If anything Marx was against Judaism as anyone can find out in his “The Jewish Question” and was often accused of anti-Semitism.

There is so much ignorance hidden behind the usual clichés repeated ad nauseam.

In the first instance left and right were always merely elements of the same liberalism project that effectively curtailed the threatening rise of enfranchisement. Otherwise the Kings and generals that hung on too long got taken out. Oligarchy prevailed on both sides.

There is nothing distinctive or remarkable about the European civilisation other than that they fought very hard amongst themselves, and hence by necessity got good at things like fighting, building transport to escape Europe and bring back booty that they stole, and appropriating/colonising others lands. The accompanying western intellectual tradition is mainly either horseshit or appropriated/repackaged from Muslim or classical scholars.

A reminder for the author is that while Khruschev set the Soviet the goal of moving beyond socialism to achieve communism by 1980 – it was never achieved – anywhere. So let’s just pack up that pile of crap called communism anyway eh?

As for your Whitlam / Vietnam scenario, and as it appears that you may be some kind of a local, your painting of the political side as a left-right divide is a total bunch of crap. It was always an empire vs Australia sensibility decision. Australia went with empire on Vietnam because the maggot realpolitik Canberra view was that “forward defence” meant other suckers like the Americans might keep us safer.

So who first wanted Australia out of forward defence? John Gorton, the “conservative” PM is the answer. If you take your little left-right butt off to the new CIA archive website and type in “Hasluck” you will find two documents of interest concerning this subject among only a dozen or so. The first is a CIA account of Gorton’s anti forward defence position from their liberal party sources. Hasluck as foreigm minister and the defence minister are said to have been opposed to Gorton’s unyielding view. Next, pay attention to Hasluck’s parliamentary proceedings opening speech after he left the parliament and was immediately made governor general. Forward defence is resoundingly back as Australian government policy. And what happened to Gorton? He was overthrown by the Sydney faction in his party led by the electorally detested and vulnerable undercover gay Billy “Big Ears” McMahon. McMahon had Sydney newspaper tycoon Frank Packer and the Fairfaxes in his back pocket and they led the attack on Gorton. McMahon was then soundly defeated by the same “leftist” Whitlam whose pro Vietnam war quotes from the early 60s are easily sourced.

The “end of ideology” was the American concept that rather saw through the drivel you espouse back in 1950. It drove the Congress for Cultural Freedom that was outed as a CIA front organisation in 1964 and yet more comprehensively in 1967 by the controlling CIA operative that sought to defend it.

The Americans got it 67 years ago – so it is about time the amateurs acknowledged it now. And for the nuevo Congress styled suckholes paid by the usual suspect foundations that work the narrative spaces through tradtional and social media today in exactly the same way – there is one phrase that applies “you have done it (the propaganda and the empire) to death”.

A distinction has to be made between the patriotic left / socialism ( such as Soviet Socialism , Titoism, Castroism , Bolivarian Chavista etc ) and the degenerate “left” of the globalization era.

In general, the genuine Patriotic socialism disappeared after the extinction of USSR and eastern Bloc ( with the exception of Cuba ) even though it made a comeback at Latin America with Chavez and Morales. This genuine socialism had it’s shortcomings but in general it was patriotic, traditionalist and made huge advances in many areas of science, healthcare , economic development. Sadly, it is dead as USSR ceased to exist and we now have the unipolar system of neoliberal globalization ….

The current globalized pseudo – “left” of our days supports all institutions of globalization ( such as EU, NATO, EURO, NAFTA etc) and is fully integrated and obedient to the New World Order.

Whenever pseudo leftists / progressives were in power, they implemented neoliberal policies and privatized state property and corporations while destroying the welfare state
(remember the blairite UK labour , French/Italians/Spanish socialists, Greek party Syriza etc ). Not only that, they even supported the imperialist western wars at Middle East that caused havoc ( Afghanistan, Iraq , Libya , Syria etc ) .

These clownish “leftists / social democrats” are fanatically supportive of EU and Eurozone, therefore they support neoliberal globalization.
And they focus only on degenerate policies about gay & trans rights, promotion of drug use, refugee rights etc

But they remain silent on what is important. No
words about the necessity for popular and national sovereignty, the democratization of the non-democratic western political system, the need to control the economy and natural resources by the people and the state ( eg nationalizations ), the provision of free health care and education .

It is not unusual then that large parts of the western working classes are now supporting the neonationalist political parties and movements as these neonationalists parties have adopted some of the agenda of the old genuine left ( national sovereignty, nationalizations of natural resources / banking / stretegic sectors etc , protection of the welfare system, no participation in wars ).

It’s no surprise that the thugs of pseudo leftism have accussed as “fascists” all these people and they even have resorted to violence as we can see with the antifa gangs who attack whoever they label as “fascist”. The tactics and violent behaviour of the degenerate pseudoleft is reminiscent of the old fascism of 1930s . In essence , they are what they claim to fight. They are neoliberal fascists.

Thank you for this article. It clarified a lot and seemed to create complexity too. I like this:

And finally, at the end of the day, political movements, right, left, conservative revolutions or otherwise, including the multitude of religious factions and schools, none of them mean much at all, unless they offer humanity the real salvation it needs. And the salvation of humanity will not come from politics and politicians.

But if one looks at different versions of the definitions of salvation, defining salvation as an outcome of knowledge is a definition that cannot be surmounted except by those who prefer ignorance.

The ‘dilemma’ of the ‘left’ stems from the illusion that “the drive for change came from below; from the masses. That was how the mother of all revolutions, the French Revolution, was created”. As a matter of fact, all revolutions are started by small groups of ‘dissidents’ made of ‘intellectuals’, defrocked priests, professors of natural philosophy at the Medieval Universities angered that they failed their exams to become ‘doctors’, iconoclast ‘artists’, La Boheme of the debauched troubadours/entertainers and comedians (the ‘Show business) – masses do not read Spinoza, but would guffaw at the ‘social critique’ of Tartuffe -, impatient to liberating themselves from the ‘yoke’ of the rules of good behavior and thought imposed on them by some ‘monstrous’ ecclesiastical mafia. These groups would now strive to take the place of the Churches and tell the ‘flock’ what’s right and left and to chop their heads if they were disobedient (the French Revolution invented ‘La Terreur’ and the guillotine). Above all, they would fight against the ‘tyrannical God’ who curtails their ‘freedom to do as they please’. Pussy Riot, the Vagina Woman are the direct result of ‘leftist liberation’. But that’s where their demise comes from. “A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants” (“like Saturn, the revolution devours its children”).

I can’t put it better than one of the greatest Orthodox thinkers of our times (one of the rare ones recognized as a ‘theologian’), Saint Justin Popovic:

“Where does humanistic culture lead?”

“Man’s greatness is only in God—that is the motto of Theanthropic culture. Man without God is seventy kilograms of bloody clay, a sepulcher prior to the grave. European man has condemned to death both God and the soul, but has he not thereby also condemned himself to that death following which there is no resurrection? Try dispassionately to grasp the essence of European philosophy, of European science, politics, culture, civilization, and you will see that in European man they have killed God and the immortality of the soul. And if one seriously ponders the tragedy of human history, then it is possible to see that Deicide always ends with suicide. Remember Judas: first he killed God, and then he destroyed himself, such is the inevitable law of the history of our planet.
The structure of European culture, erected without Christ, must crumble away, and crumble away very quickly, prophesied the insightful and astute Dostoyevsky one hundred years ago, and the mournful Gogol over one hundred years ago. And before our very eyes are the prophecies of these Slavic prophets coming to pass. For ten centuries has the European Tower of Babel been building itself, and now a tragic picture meets our gaze: what has been constructed is a huge nothing! General perplexity and confusion have begun: man cannot understand man, nor soul understand soul, nor nation understand nation. Man has risen up against man, kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, and even continent against continent.
European man has reached his destiny—determining and head-spinning heights. He has set the superman at the summit of his Tower of Babel, seeking therewith to crown his structure, but the superman went mad just short of the apex and fell from the tower, which is crumbling away and collapsing in his wake, and being broken down by wars and revolutions. Homo europaeicus had to become a suicide. His “Wille zur Macht” (lust for Power) became “Wille zur Nacht” (longing for night). And night, an onerous night, descended upon Europe. The idols of Europe are crashing down, and not far distant is that day when not a stone will remain upon a stone of European culture—a culture that builds cities and destroys souls; which deifies creatures and casts away the Creator…
The Russian thinker Herzen, enamored of Europe, lived there a long time. But in the sunset of his life, one hundred years ago, he wrote: “For quite some time did we study the worm-eaten organism of Europe. In all its strata, everywhere, we saw the signs of death… Europe is advancing toward a frightful catastrophe… Political revolutions are collapsing beneath the weight of their inadequacy. They have wrought great deeds, but have not accomplished their task. They have destroyed faith, but have not secured liberty. They have kindled in men’s hearts such desires as were not fated to come to pass… Before all others, I turn deathly pale and am frightend of the impending night… Farewell, dying world! Farewell, Europe!”

This week, as criticism of the US-Russian cease-fire in Syria mounted within the Pentagon brass, a prominent foreign policy analyst issued a statement denouncing the truce. He reiterated US calls for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, and he advocated a major escalation of the US-NATO intervention in Syria—arming the Islamist opposition with anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons.

“As almost everybody can now tell,” this critic wrote, “the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country.”

He added, “Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. … [T]he issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012.”

One might assume that this essay had been prepared by a CIA operative, or, perhaps, a columnist for either the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. In fact, the author is Gilbert Achcar, the prominent associate of France’s New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA). Achcar left that movement to take a professorship at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) in London and join the NPA-linked Socialist Resistance group in Britain. His latest article was written for the Nation and republished on the Pabloite’s International Viewpoint web site, affiliated with the NPA.

The ISO and the New America think tank denounce opposition to the war in Syria
By Eric London
17 October 2016

On October 11, as part of its campaign for an escalation of the US military intervention in Syria, the International Socialist Organization published on its Socialist Worker web site an interview with journalist Anand Gopal under the headline “A nightmare in the making for Mosul.”
…
The ISO is demanding that the Obama administration take military action to halt the brutal Russian-backed offensive by Syrian government forces against Washington’s de facto Islamist militia allies in Aleppo, while giving tacit support to the US offensive in Mosul against ISIS, deemed an obstacle to the American drive for hegemony in the Middle East.

As the discussion shifts to Syria, the real political content of the interview emerges—a slanderous attack on all those who oppose the US war in Syria, based on the charge that opposition to the war equals support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. US imperialism, on the other hand, is portrayed as an ally of the Syrian masses.

Australia’s Socialist Alternative agitates for escalation of US intervention in Syria
By Will Morrow
2 December 2016

The five year long US-led regime-change operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has exposed the right-wing, pro-imperialist character of the Australian pseudo-left organisation Socialist Alternative.

On October 27, Socialist Alternative’s website Redflag published its latest comment on the issue, entitled “The western left and the Syrian war,” continuing the organisation’s four-year support for the US proxy war. Adopting the standpoint of an imperialist military strategist, author Corey Oakley demands that the Obama administration provide its right-wing Islamist proxy forces with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down both Syrian government aircraft and Russian warplanes, which have provided key air support to the Syrian army fighting against the imperialist-backed “rebels.”

“CIA officers in Turkey, nominally in place to assist arms supply, in many cases in fact prevented the flow of weapons, particularly heavy weapons, to rebel forces,” Oakley complains. He adds: “After the September ceasefire collapsed, there was renewed talk that the long-enforced US ban on the supply of significant numbers of Saudi surface-to-air missiles to Syrian rebels would be lifted. But by mid-October it was clear that these plans had yet again been shelved.”

International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria
By Alex Lantier and David North
21 September 2016

The arguments advanced by the International Socialist Organization (ISO) to support the US-NATO war for regime change in Syria are virtually indistinguishable from the CIA-dictated propaganda published by the New York Times. A recent and, to be frank, particularly filthy example of the ISO’s propagation of the CIA-Pentagon narrative is an article by Ashley Smith, “Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution,” posted August 25 on socialistworker.org, the ISO’s website.

As the WSWS has frequently noted, the ISO’s campaign for intensified US-NATO intervention in Syria closely tracks the initiatives of the US government. On August 25, the Times published provocative pieces by two of its leading columnists, Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof. These gentlemen specialize in marketing CIA wars as “humanitarian interventions” to the affluent liberal milieu whose world outlook is greatly influenced by the Times. Cohen’s essay was titled “America’s Retreat and the Agony of Aleppo.” Kristof chose an even more provocative headline for his appeal for intensified US bombing: “Anne Frank Today Is a Syrian Girl.”

Thank you for exposing those fake left outlets, probably Criminal Inc. America (CIA)’s plants. The proliferation of such outlets are a challenge to many people, especially the young, to filter their filth from genuine concern for socialist values. As I understand, some of this fake left groupings’ stance is based on their Russophobia regardless of the fact that supporting the US’s agenda is tantamount to supporting the enemy they supposedly fight, the global oligarchy.

As a young man with an all-round education, I was often befuddled by the number of socialist shop fronts all proclaiming to be the true believers – and some were – but eventually the penny would drop and you learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. Must be harder now with the web media.

Actually, this irresistible and absolutely genuine pull towards imperialism and reaction felt by Western Leftists is primarily material, not ideological, and it has a solid, commendable legacy by now. Already back in the early 20th century, long before the European colonial Empires came tumbling down, it was glaringly obvious that the Western Left was rotten to the core — racist, imperialist, and die-hard chauvinist. On the very few occasions back then when the Western Left had to listen to people from countries subjugated by Western imperialism (e.g. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh), pleading for international solidarity, the most common answer amounted to that colonialism was not necessarily a bad thing (very true; it was immensely beneficial for the oppressor nations) and that solidarity with the armed struggle of the oppressed peoples were to be perceived as treason by the entire ‘advanced’ Western working class (also very true; they knew which side their bread was buttered).

The Western Left today proudly honours these attitudes, preferring imperialist comfort and privilege to struggle and the seeking for truth and justice. A difference, however, is that today they don’t give a hoot about any workers anywhere. Their storm-troopers are sexual deviants and ‘anti-authoritarians’, with the whole movement now firmly in the pockets of that great philanthropist George Soros.

Thorough analysis and opinion – though you’d perhaps be better served if you got key details – such as who wrote the ‘Weatlh of Nations’ correct. And paid attention to spelling (e.g. ‘Tolkien’). And, no, I don’t think I’m nit-picking; there is a war of ideas and ‘truth’ raging and strong contrarian opinions will need precision and a suit or armor

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.